EA-Release - price/quality and appreciation of the community?

[Moons]

Ive been a long time fan of KSP - i bought KSP1 pretty much when it was released on steam and i never regretted it - i was looking forward to KSP2 for a long time and was very excited for the review but:

• the first red flag i saw was the price - while i do enjoy KSP its just not a game that in my opinion justifies a price tag of 50 Dollars not even as full release (i cant even comprehend that the FAQs seriously state that 50 isnt even the final price ...)
• the next problem is the state of the game - from everything i've seen the ammount of content and bugs is beyond what i would usually buy in EA - especialyl at the price of a AAA full release game
• the next problem are the Hardware requirements - looking at the graphics they seem way too high for what i see and its also a general problem since we all know that a good KSP will have lots of Mods - looking at how mods impact performance of KSP1 i wonder who would even be able to use lots of mods?

To be honest from my point of view this shows a lack of appreciation of the community of this game - i would have been perfectly fine with a release like this if it was at a reasonable price point like 30-35 Dollars or if it was a different concept since its not an indie game anymore - for example a normal pre-purchase with guaranteed content and as a goodie alpha access. But as it is - people are asked to pay the price of a AAA title for an EA game - and EA always also means risks for the buyer regarding if and in what state a game gets finished - thats the whole point of EA and why its usually way cheaper than a full release purchase.

 

I think this game has huge issues in regards to the future (the bad start, the way too expensive price, the fact that its alweady fallen behind the player numbers of KSP1, the hardware requirements) - and a lot of those could have been avoided and its beyond me why they werent avoided - and i also dont understand why reading this form it seems as if 99% of all posters here compared to all other sites are trying to hide critique in overly positive statements. I dont think it will help anybody if people arent sincere and try to be nice. This launch was bad - and its important to realize that and do something about it to save this game.

 

From my point of view this game now is at a turning point - looking at the steam numbers its already falling behind KSP1 in player numbers - just days after EA-release which usually is the time when it has the most players - the mixture of a lack of players, the high price and the bugs - and the hardware requirements probably also hinder future modding which is very important for a game like this.

I would really like to know what the plan is - as it is now if the price stays at 50 Dollars i dont see any future for this game - especially combined with all the negativity, the bad press etc.

Whats even more absurd to me is the statement in the FAQ that this isnt even the final price - seriously - is tehre really anyone thinking that this game can be sold beyond the price of a AAA game and be a success? And im not even talking about all the other issues this game has - for example - in my opinion- the awful EULA in regards to privacy and also especially in regards to modding - in a game that requires modding to become a success ...

 

And as i stated - i have no idea why they did this - selling a game in a state like this as EA at a price of 50 Dollars was a guaranteed flop with negativity - obviously people will look at things differently and be way more lenient depending on the price.

 

I really want to see this game succeed but as it is now and even though im a huge fan of KSP and bought all content of KSP1 i cant see myself buying this at this price. And to be honest seeing the price they are selling this EA to their fans i also have lost a lot of trust in this company that built a lot of good will and reputation over the years.

 

To be honest - i think if they would just haver sold it at a reasonable price like 30-35 Dollars we would have tons of positive feedback, lots of sales and no bad press now ...

[Chilkoot]

1 hour ago, Moons said:

To be honest - i think if they would just haver sold it at a reasonable price like 30-35 Dollars we would have tons of positive feedback, lots of sales and no bad press now ...

Valve has some pretty strict restrictions on price changes.  I'm not sure if or how often the publisher can change the price of an EA release on Steam, which will be the lion's share of sales.  It does make sense that the price would start lower for bare-bones EA and then ramp up as features are added, but that may be disallowed by the TOS.

[zeekzeek22]

There are *so many disclaimers*. The EA Release should be viewed as:
"Preorder our game that releases in a year for a 10$ discount"
*PLUS*
"And as a bonus you can play the dev versions of the game until launch"

which honestly sounds pretty nice.

NOT

"You are paying AAA price for a AAA game NOW and you should expect it NOW"

 

If you wanted to pay AAA price for AAA quality, just wait till it's fully released. Or if you want AAA quality at a 10$ discount, buy it now and never open it till full release. But on Steam every EA game has "This is not a AAA-quality release build" plastered in giant letters. SMH

[yipyop]

Quote

To be honest - i think if they would just haver sold it at a reasonable price like 30-35 Dollars we would have tons of positive feedback, lots of sales and no bad press now ...

I agree with you that an "almost finished ~50%" game (so at least science and some novelty) at 50 ok, but as it is, I find that the investors or the "Big Boss" is not too bad...

After the devs and managers are executors, if they are told it's this or nothing...

[Moons]

3 hours ago, Chilkoot said:

Valve has some pretty strict restrictions on price changes.  I'm not sure if or how often the publisher can change the price of an EA release on Steam, which will be the lion's share of sales.  It does make sense that the price would start lower for bare-bones EA and then ramp up as features are added, but that may be disallowed by the TOS.

Pretty sure there is no TOS against that since that is pretty much how 99% of all EA games work - Kerbal is doing the same - just in a very strange way (start at AAA price and raise even more at release) and there even were EA games in sale etc. - pretty sure there arent many limitations as long as your not going completely crazy.

 

1 hour ago, zeekzeek22 said:

There are *so many disclaimers*. The EA Release should be viewed as:
"Preorder our game that releases in a year for a 10$ discount"
*PLUS*
"And as a bonus you can play the dev versions of the game until launch"

which honestly sounds pretty nice.

NOT

"You are paying AAA price for a AAA game NOW and you should expect it NOW"

 

If you wanted to pay AAA price for AAA quality, just wait till it's fully released. Or if you want AAA quality at a 10$ discount, buy it now and never open it till full release. But on Steam every EA game has "This is not a AAA-quality release build" plastered in giant letters. SMH

The problem is - what you describe isnt EA but a Pre-Order with Beta/Alpha Access - you can do that aswell but if you think thats the same then you are mistaken - having a pre-order with Alpha/Beta Access would mainly give consumers way more rights in regards to the final product and would be way more binding. EA pretty much is investing in a game that may or may not ever be finished never knowing what features the final game will have.

I'm sorre the problem isnt the cunsomers and fans of the game or the EA system in general but the absurd way the EA system was used by KSP. The only other game that did something similar was Baldurs Gate 3 but even they had way more content with almost no bugs at the start and never actually intended to use EA in a way EA is meant to be used. In general i think EA should be blocked for any game with bigger publishers.

 

And as i stated - no i dont think its okay to charge full AAA price for an EA games and then pretend calling it EA magically makes it immune to critique. In general its pretty werid when a game by an AAA Publisher uses EA.

What EA is supposed to be:

• a way to fund a game for smaller devleopers and get money way before the product
• a way to get more community interaction from the start
• a way to have some of the risk taken by the consumers but that risk and payment way before release also has to be compensated financially

What its not is a way to get almost 100% of the money up front while levering many consumer rights and shifting productions risks to consumers without financial compensation.

 

 

They could have just sold the game at full price as a pre-order with Alpha/Beta Access - why didnt they do that?

 

Since i saw a lot of different price-models etc. on steam i doubt that there are many limitations on steam in regards to those things.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Moons

[Chilkoot]

1 hour ago, zeekzeek22 said:

"Preorder our game that releases in a year for a 10$ discount"
*PLUS*
"And as a bonus you can play the dev versions of the game until launch"

which honestly sounds pretty nice.

This is much better public messaging - expectations are everything, and it's painfully obvious now the gaming public's expectations of EA are different than what was released.

[Casellina X]

Where are folks living, or what year are they in, where AAA games cost $50? The last time I recall a AAA game going for $50 was the PS2 era. From Xbox 360/PS3 on games were $59.99, and thanks to a couple of publishers, these days AAA games are going for $69.99. Now I've said this in another thread, but given that we're dealing with Take Two as the publisher, the expected price of the game will likely be $69.99. Therefore, at $50, it definitely is a discounted Early Access price. Whether or not the game is worth $50, $60, or $70 is up to the consumer to decide. By the way people are reacting to the pricing, they should not buy in now (if they haven't already) and wait for a 50%+ off sale. That's the only chance they'll have at getting KSP2 at any price that seems reasonable to them.

[Moons]

28 minutes ago, Chilkoot said:

This is much better public messaging - expectations are everything, and it's painfully obvious now the gaming public's expectations of EA are different than what was released.

Which was to be expected if you sell an EA game at 50 Dollars.

 

13 minutes ago, Casellina X said:

Where are folks living, or what year are they in, where AAA games cost $50? The last time I recall a AAA game going for $50 was the PS2 era. From Xbox 360/PS3 on games were $59.99, and thanks to a couple of publishers, these days AAA games are going for $69.99. Now I've said this in another thread, but given that we're dealing with Take Two as the publisher, the expected price of the game will likely be $69.99. Therefore, at $50, it definitely is a discounted Early Access price. Whether or not the game is worth $50, $60, or $70 is up to the consumer to decide. By the way people are reacting to the pricing, they should not buy in now (if they haven't already) and wait for a 50%+ off sale. That's the only chance they'll have at getting KSP2 at any price that seems reasonable to them.

You can buy most AAA games at about 50 Dollars if you buy from third party stores.

Uncharted Legacy of Thieves launched at 50 Dollars on steam.

 

The games that launched at 69 Dollars actually flopped hard - mainly because of the price - on PC for example Forspoken. And to be honest 70 Dollars is a price at which i will simply ignore a release.

 

And im sorry to say that so directly - but believing that KSP2 would justify a 70 Dollar price tag is just absurd. I wont even pay that much for an AAA game and even with all the features currently stated with a perfect release with no bugs it would never justify 70 Dollars to me. And looking at how many of the new PC releases at 70 Dollars turned into huge flops with lots of negativity chances are consumers actually for once are putting an end to bad business practices. Release sales are very important to companys and the mixture of flopping release sales combined with negative reviews actually hurt a lot financially therefore i hop 70 Dollars game will soon stop to show up.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Moons

[Casellina X]

3 minutes ago, Moons said:

Which was to be expected if you sell an EA game at 50 Dollars.

 

You can buy most AAA games at about 50 Dollars if you buy from third party stores.

Uncharted Legacy of Thieves launched at 50 Dollars on steam.

 

The games that launched at 69 Dollars actually flopped hard - mainly because of the price - on PC for example Forspoken. And to be honest 70 Dollars is a price at which i will simply ignore a release.

 

And im sorry to say that so directly - but believing that KSP2 would justify a 70 Dollar price tag is just absurd. I wont even pay that much for an AAA game and even with all the features currently stated with a perfect release with no bugs it would never justify 70 Dollars to me.

I'm not familiar with Uncharted, but was that a PC release of something originally on console? Also, what was the original MSRP of that game? I'm not saying any of this as a gotcha, but just to maintain the perspective. If that game had been released on prior platforms then sure I can see that as a $50 game. But I think you're referring to exceptions rather than the rule, especially by mentioning going to third party stores for that $50 number.

Also like you said, justifying KSP2 at $70 might be hard. But once again see the perspective of the times we're in. The shift is towards higher cost games. When I saw a $50 Early Access price, I knew how things were going to play out (we'll see if indeed I'm correct). I was comfortable buying in at this price because I appreciated the direction over Stock KSP1. It has issues, there is no way to put that lightly. But I understand that this is a lengthy process. On my end, I struggle to grasp what seems like overwhelming rage at KSP2 and the developers. It's ok to be upset, but people have to remember that other people... are people too. The intensity that people are coming at the developers with should really be dialed down.

[Moons]

15 minutes ago, Casellina X said:

I'm not familiar with Uncharted, but was that a PC release of something originally on console? Also, what was the original MSRP of that game? I'm not saying any of this as a gotcha, but just to maintain the perspective. If that game had been released on prior platforms then sure I can see that as a $50 game. But I think you're referring to exceptions rather than the rule, especially by mentioning going to third party stores for that $50 number.

Also like you said, justifying KSP2 at $70 might be hard. But once again see the perspective of the times we're in. The shift is towards higher cost games. When I saw a $50 Early Access price, I knew how things were going to play out (we'll see if indeed I'm correct). I was comfortable buying in at this price because I appreciated the direction over Stock KSP1. It has issues, there is no way to put that lightly. But I understand that this is a lengthy process. On my end, I struggle to grasp what seems like overwhelming rage at KSP2 and the developers. It's ok to be upset, but people have to remember that other people... are people too. The intensity that people are coming at the developers with should really be dialed down.

 

I dont think so - i also dont think that the critique is directed at the dvelopers but at the publisher. The decision in wich state and at what price to release isnt a decision made by the DEVs - at least thats what i think when it comes to big publishers. And i also think gamers have been way to lenient with gaming industry - for that reason whe now have gambling mechanics like lootboxes, absurd MTs prices - you can sell worthless cheaply made skins in amyn games probably made in a hour for up to 20 Dollars.

Big companies are simple - they want to maximize profits and they will do so by increasing prices, reducing content, adding MTs etc. until there is too much resistance that leads to making less money than before. If there is no resistance because people believe this is a situation of mutual understanding and interrest than everything will just get worse for consumers until they will react. Not only for the consumers but also for the developers - it should be pretty obvious for anyone that outside an indie developer most of the big decisions are made by someone else and developers are normal employees.

 

I obviously have no idea and cant know - but if i had to guess im pretty sure that the developers probably also didnt want to release in this state at this price and beeing lenient on the publisher probably wont help the developer at all. Pretending that everything was fine would just justify a release like this in the future. But yes i think its important to differentiate between different people and what they can actually do - but reading trough the forums i dont get the impression that most people blame the developers.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Moons

[Alexoff]

A good example of early access is Dyson Sphere Program. KSP2 is obviously a bad example of early access. Of course, connoisseurs will be able to find worse examples, but this does not change the fact that since 2019 we have had to constantly reduce expectations from the game. First, constant delays to "polish the game", then early access without new features in december, right before the release, we were pleased with the absence of many mechanics from KSP1, and after the release of the game, also with a huge number of bugs. It is difficult to enjoy such game, you have to be a special masochist.

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

we have had to constantly reduce expectations from the game

Codeword for "our expectations were unrealistic and it is the developers' fault", I presume.

[Alexoff]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Codeword for "our expectations were unrealistic and it is the developers' fault", I presume.

I'm glad that your expectations were fully met. Since right now there are fewer people playing KSP2 than KSP1, I can assume that I'm not alone. So you have to convince thousands more people that all the trailers and other words from the developers that we all heard, they should not have been believed. We had to understand that early access can be of any quality, we should all be happy with the dV calculator, and we you don’t like it, it’s our own fault.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Alexoff said:

I'm glad that your expectations were fully met. Since right now there are fewer people playing KSP2 than KSP1, I can assume that I'm not alone. So you have to convince thousands more people that all the trailers and other words from the developers that we all heard, they should not have been believed. We had to understand that early access can be of any quality, we should all be happy with the dV calculator, and we you don’t like it, it’s our own fault.

You should be happy you won't need to wait until 2029 for dV to come around, because that's the kind of standards Squad held and people happily dealt with.

You fail over and over to understand the entire point of EA and claim that games that come out into EA are meant to be perfect and completely flawless. That defeats the entire point of EA.

I'm sorry that you feel personally betrayed by Intercept because they didn't deliver 12 years of development in the 3 years they ultimately got, and that you feel entitled to seeing interstellar and all those WIP features in the very first release of the game.

[Meecrob]

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You should be happy you won't need to wait until 2029 for dV to come around, because that's the kind of standards Squad held and people happily dealt with.

What are you talking about? People were livid until it was added.

 

Also we didn't expect a flawless game. We expected one that was not feature-complete, instead we got a broken one. There is a huge difference.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

What are you talking about? People were livid until it was added.

 

Also we didn't expect a flawless game. We expected one that was not feature-complete, instead we got a broken one. There is a huge difference.

You didn't get anything in the first place. If you were waiting for a proper release that's aimed at a wider audience which isn't interested in filing bug reports, then EA was not intended for you. You made the mistake of waiting for the 24th like you'd wait for the 1.0 release with interstellar and all that.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Meecrob]

You seem to be replying to something I didn't say.

Its a fact people were pestering the devs for years for a Dv readout for KSP1.

Its a fact KSP2 as it stands on March 1st, 2023 is broken. If you disagree that it is broken, feel free to look at the thread that announces the upcoming patch, because that indicates that the dev team thinks its broken, or they wouldn't be releasing it.

 

I am not commenting on my personal opinion, nor whether I have purchased the game or not. I am saying objective truths here. Stop telling me and others you are sorry we "don't get it" because we are not talking about whatever it is you think you are replying to.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Meecrob

[TackleMcClean]

7 hours ago, Moons said:

• other issues this game has - for example - in my opinion- the awful EULA in regards to privacy and also especially in regards to modding - in a game that requires modding to become a success ...

Could you expand on this? I haven't bought the game and haven't read anything specific about the EULA. The modding is the backbone of the game's longevity. Has there been any change that could jeapordize this?

Edited March 1, 2023 by TackleMcClean
Grammar

[Alexoff]

30 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You should be happy you won't need to wait until 2029 for dV to come around, because that's the kind of standards Squad held and people happily dealt with.

God, what happiness! Magic button! In what year should we expect a normal correction of maneuvers?

31 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You fail over and over to understand the entire point of EA and claim that games that come out into EA are meant to be perfect and completely flawless. That defeats the entire point of EA.

What is the early access standard? With what to compare KSP2? Maybe a dyson sphere program?

33 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm sorry that you feel personally betrayed by Intercept because they didn't deliver 12 years of development in the 3 years they ultimately got

Do you think the development of the game started 3 years ago? And what did they show us in 2019? What did they promise to release in 2020?

[Moons]

23 minutes ago, TackleMcClean said:

Could you expand on this? I haven't bought the game and haven't read anything specific about the EULA. The modding is the backbone of the game's longevity. Has there been any change that could jeapordize this?

For example:

 

Privacy:

Quote

INFORMATION COLLECTION & USAGE
By installing and using the Software, you consent to the information collection and usage terms set forth in this section and Licensor's Privacy Policy, including (where applicable) (i) the transfer of any personal information and other information to Licensor, its affiliates, vendors, and business partners, and to certain other third parties, such as governmental authorities, in the U.S. and other countries located outside Europe or your home country, including countries that may have lower standards of privacy protection; (ii) the public display of your data, such as identification of your user-created content or displaying your scores, ranking, achievements, and other gameplay data on websites and other platforms; (iii) the sharing of your gameplay data with hardware manufacturers, platform hosts, and Licensor's marketing partners; and (iv) other uses and disclosures of your personal information or other information as specified in the above-referenced Privacy Policy, as amended from time to time. If you do not want your information used or shared in this manner, then you should not use the Software.

To me that pretty much means that they can do almost anything - and i wonder - i bought a product - yet i feel like im the product and even pay for it ...

 

Modding:

Quote

LICENSE TO THE COMPANY
By creating UGC, posting messages, uploading files, creating files, inputting data, or engaging in any form of communication with or through the Online Services, you are granting the Company a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to: (1) use, copy, sublicense, adapt, transmit, publicly perform, or display any such material; and (2) sublicense to third-parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the material. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such material, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark, or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. Please consult the EULA at www.take2games.com/eula for additional license terms

 

What does that even mean - does that mean modders pretty much give away any right to whatever they create?

 

And im pretty sure something like this doesnt work in real life:

Quote

Changes to Privacy Policy
We reserve the right to make changes to this Privacy Policy. Please check back from time to time to review these changes. If we change this Privacy Policy in a material way, we will provide appropriate notice to you and, as appropriate, provide additional choices regarding such change. As permitted by applicable law, your continued use of the Services means that you accept these changes.

From the little things i know about the legal system of most countries - especially when it comes to consumers - terms that give one party the right to change an agreement afterwards however they want simply dont work. The same applys to "auto accept" - i mean what would that mean in reality - i would just ranomly lose the ability to use a product i purchased because they change their terms randomly years after release - but if i still use it i agree to everything automatically?

 

I know that many companies do those absurd EULAs etc. but that doesnt change the fact that this has to stop.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Moons

[MarcAbaddon]

I don't think that information collection part is even legal in the EU?

[zeekzeek22]

I guess it sounds like people feel like it should have been marketed as "Discounted preorder+alpha/beta access" instead of "EA" because there is an assumed (but by no means definite) industry standard of pretty-polished-but-feature/story-incomplete. It's semantics really, but if you feel strongly that the terms should have definable expectations, I can understand the upset.

As well, I don't really get the argument that AAA titles/publishers shouldn't use EA...EA is a way to amortize some of the development debt early and get some free QA, which makes sense from a finance perspective for any company, not just cash-strapped indies. Which preorders also do. Like yeah, using players as free QA is greedy when your company is big, but, none of us have to do it.

I also think Intercept did communicate a lot of the situation: they said they had a feature-completish somewhat-playable build internally, but that they would be disassembling it to use EA to bug-hunt in sections. They didn't communicate HOW bugful it would be, but they were clear about what was up. I think we all assumed that if they were playing internally, it would have QOL features like dV managers and non-finicky maneuvers, and that the kraken wouldn't be everywhere. I certainly assumed that and was surprised.

Lastly...isn't Private Division a mid-sized publisher that exclusively publishes games made by small-to-mid-sized indie developers? Intercept isn't indie, obv. It's in-house. but it's still a small business and a small team. KSP2 is not from a AAA developer, it's not being published by Take Two directly. The corporate relationships are there but I've definitely learned within my own industry that subsidiaries of huge megacorps can still be as simple as mom-and-pop shops. For example, some of my favorite local small-batch craft breweries were bought by Anheuser Busch...but their product is still what they were before. Being owned by a publisher that is owned by Take Two doesn't make Intercept a AAA development studio. So all the AAA talk is misplaced. Re: "AAA pricing"...I personally think indie games can be priced whatever they want and whatever makes sense for their budget, but that's a to-each-their-own opinion, not a declaration.

[Periple]

20 hours ago, Moons said:

From the little things i know about the legal system of most countries - especially when it comes to consumers - terms that give one party the right to change an agreement afterwards however they want simply dont work. The same applys to "auto accept" - i mean what would that mean in reality - i would just ranomly lose the ability to use a product i purchased because they change their terms randomly years after release - but if i still use it i agree to everything automatically?

When you buy a game you're not buying a product, you're buying a license to use a product. If the license has a clause saying that the other party can change it at will and your license is revoked if you don't agree to those changes, and you accepted those terms when you bought it, then the general rule of freedom of contract would say that you're SOL.

However, many countries have laws that put limits on the freedom of contract, and I'm not sure that reading would stand up in court everywhere. It would be interesting to see what would happen if this actually went to court somewhere. Litigation be expensive though.

[Moons]

3 hours ago, Periple said:

When you buy a game you're not buying a product, you're buying a license to use a product. If the license has a clause saying that the other party can change it at will and your license is revoked if you don't agree to those changes, and you accepted those terms when you bought it, then the general rule of freedom of contract would say that you're SOL.

However, many countries have laws that put limits on the freedom of contract, and I'm not sure that reading would stand up in court everywhere. It would be interesting to see what would happen if this actually went to court somewhere. Litigation be expensive though.

As far as i know whenever such terms become a topic lots of them simply fail. The problem is most of these things never go to court since each individual case isnt worth it and chances are that even if you have a legal insurance they will simply pay you the damage instead of paying for a lawsuit - which makes sense - if the damage is for example below 50 Dollars and a single hour of an attorney costs 200+ its probably not a hard decision.

 

To be honest - i never understood how this industry managed to strip consumers of pretty much most rights consumers normally have. Politics obviously isnt interrested in regulation at all in this area even tough its the biggest entertainment industry right now - which is weird.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Moons

[RocketRockington]

My suspicion is that the game is $50 now exactly because of the appreciation of the KSP community.  There is a huge love of KSP among hundreds of thousands of active fans, and a positive opinion among millions of more casual fans.  Because of this, T2 likely believed that this launch would somehow pass muster.  

But as for appreciating the fans themselves...the lack of communication by the project management or take 2 in this last week likely means they don't really want to be honest with us about what happened or what is going to be happening, and are hoping we all have goldfish memories of their promises and hype vs what they've delivered.

3 hours ago, Moons said:

To be honest - i never understood how this industry managed to strip consumers of pretty much most rights consumers normally have. Politics obviously isnt interrested in regulation at all in this area even tough its the biggest entertainment industry right now - which is weird.

They boiled the frog slowly.

Edited March 2, 2023 by RocketRockington